1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: 100,000,000 won;

B. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B.

30,000,000.

1. According to Gap evidence No. 1’s reasoning as to the cause of the claim, it is acknowledged that the Defendants prepared and executed the loan certificate of this case with the following content to the plaintiff on August 7, 2007.

The loan amount: The loan amount shall be borrowed prior to August 2004, Samcheon, 2004, and the amount and the interest shall be repaid until August 14, 2007.

The date of repayment: C on August 7, 2007: The borrower is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the amount of KRW 100,000,000, as the Plaintiff seeks, and the Defendant C, jointly and severally with the Defendant B, the amount of KRW 30,00,000 out of the above amount and the amount of KRW 30,00,000 from August 15, 2007 to June 14, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint from August 14, 2016 to June 14, 2016; and the amount of delay damages calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion: (a) Defendant B made a monetary transaction with the Plaintiff, and Defendant C merely introduced them, and thus, Defendant C merely did not have any responsibility based on the instant loan certificate; (b) as long as the authenticity of the disposition document is recognized and the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized in accordance with the language and text; and (c) in order to reject it, there should be specific and reasonable grounds that the description was prepared differently from

However, even though Defendant C denies the probative value of the loan certificate of this case, there is no assertion or proof of rejection of such probative value.

In addition, as long as Defendant B failed to repay the borrowed money by the date of repayment stated in the instant loan certificate, it is apparent in the language and text of the instant loan certificate that Defendant C is liable for the repayment. Even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the highest and search defense stipulated in Article 437 of the Civil Act, it is the principal obligor.